Content area
Full text
The aim of this study was to evaluate stress distribution with different implant systems through photoelasticity. Five models were fabricated with photoelastic resin PL-2. Each model was composed of a block of photoelastic resin (10 × 40 × 45 mm) with an implant and a healing abutment: model 1, internal hexagon implant (4.0 × 10 mm; Conect AR, Conexão, São Paulo, Brazil); model 2, Morse taper/internal octagon implant (4.1 × 10 mm; Standard, Straumann ITI, Andover, Mass); model 3, Morse taper implant (4.0 × 10 mm; AR Morse, Conexão); model 4, locking taper implant (4.0 × 11 mm; Bicon, Boston, Mass); model 5, external hexagon implant (4.0 × 10 mm; Master Screw, Conexão). Axial and oblique load (45°) of 150 N were applied by a universal testing machine (EMIC-DL 3000), and a circular polariscope was used to visualize the stress. The results were photographed and analyzed qualitatively using Adobe Photoshop software. For the axial load, the greatest stress concentration was exhibited in the cervical and apical thirds. However, the highest number of isochromatic fringes was observed in the implant apex and in the cervical adjacent to the load direction in all models for the oblique load. Model 2 (Morse taper, internal octagon, Straumann ITI) presented the lowest stress concentration, while model 5 (external hexagon, Master Screw, Conexão) exhibited the greatest stress. It was concluded that Morse taper implants presented a more favorable stress distribution among the test groups. The external hexagon implant showed the highest stress concentration. Oblique load generated the highest stress in all models analyzed.
Key Words: dental implant, implant systems, biomechanics, photoelasticity
INTRODUCTION
A factor that affects rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants is the man- ner in which stresses are transferred to the surrounding bone, and much will depend on the design of the implant, type of connection implant/abutment, the presence or absence of threads, micro architecture, and chemical composition of the implant surface.1-4 Thus, the aim of the functional designs is to direct the loads through a better distribution of forces, optimizing the function of prostheses supported with implants.5
Actually, there are many implant designs avail- able. The evolution has been by way of incremental changes in size, shape, materials, and surfaces of earlier designs, prompted, at times, by market...